Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:54 pm

I have no doubt, Jim, that if groundwater becomes accepted as a significant contributor to sea level rise, that will be written up in the science mags I read. As and when that happens, I will add that information to my understanding of the process. Sadly, I do not regard your sources to be as credible, so I will wait for confirmation.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have no doubt, Jim, that if groundwater becomes accepted as a significant contributor to sea level rise, that will be written up in the science mags I read. As and when that happens, I will add that information to my understanding of the process. Sadly, I do not regard your sources to be as credible, so I will wait for confirmation.


And sadly Lance I do not regard your ignorant sniping as a valid criticisms of any analyses I have provided, especially due to your obvious inability to engage in critical thinking.

When psychobabble is considered a valid form of scientific discussion, I will consider your snipes.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10467
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Pyrrho » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:24 am

Jim Steele wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:The groundwater issue is a side issue.



ROTFLMAO.

Lance it is the topic of this post.

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that it is you who indulges in side issues.

But such is the nature of psychobabble!

ROTFLMAO

I just warned someone in this thread. Explain why I should not also warn you.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lausten » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:50 am

Jim Steele wrote:
Lausten wrote:Serious and well researched maybe, but not about the thing you are trying get from it. There's nothing in there that says global warming isn't real or glaciers aren't melting or sea level isn't rising. Seriously.


WTF! Lausten what are you smoking???

Nothing I have ever written has ever stated that the earth has not warmed since the Little Ice Age, or that glaciers have not melted since then or that sea level hasn't risen??

So WTF are you talking about????

I've been trying to figure what you are talking about since I first met you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:52 am

The word "psychobabble " is defined as 'jargon used in popular psychology'.
Thus it is inappropriate to refer to psychobabble in a debate on global warming. Better to retain it for its proper use, if we ever discuss psychology.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:13 am

Pyrrho wrote:[
I just warned someone in this thread. Explain why I should not also warn you.


OK let me explain. First the word psychobabble seems to be in a far different context than {!#%@} retard

Second Lance has not discussed climate change or the topic of this post. Instead he has gone on and on, falsely stating I have ignored data and that silly me is guilty of relying on logic and reason and that makes me a denier and not a skeptic , blah blah blah. Lance characterizes my thinking as "On global warming, forget the idiotic reasoning. " None of his posts have been about the science or any specifics, and it ignores the abundance of empirical data in the original essay. His posts are all about his manufactured psychology trying to characterize how I think. To accuse some one of being a denier for using logic and reason seems ridiculous. Lance does not use evidence but a belief in a fictitious 97% that has nothing to do with goundwater recharge and discharge So the most descriptive word I could use to describe his attempts to denigrate my analyses was psychobabble. It never occurred to me that word was off limits here. I would love to know why calling someone a denier is acceptable dialogue but describing an ill-intentioned psychoanalyses as psychobabble is bad?

Although I posted a well researched analyses on groundwater recharge and discharge, ALL the posters avoided the topic but used it as an opportunity to engage in various personal shoot the messenger attacks.

Yet they seem to get a free pass on derogatory comments.

Lausten states "You give just enough to make it appear that you might be serious, but after two or three questions, you lose it and start rambling on about the mainstream media or something. Maybe I've got you confused with some other crank, but close enough." Every one of Lausten comments have been unwarranted and mean-spirited

Gawdzilla adds his typical snipes, "Little Jimmy needs the money"

TJ says "You to do that a lot don`t you - must be a defect... hit your head as a child did ya?"

Major Malfunction adds, "Ah. You're calling Jimmyboy a cuck.

But you are warming me about using the word psychobabble. Really? My logic and reason cannot comprehend the double standard.

Why is bashing skeptics considered such good sport, no matter how much evidence and how logical the argument???
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:27 am

Let me repeat, Jim.

Opposing superstition is skepticism. Opposing science is denial.
The science in this situation is clear cut. In spite of your refusal to believe this, the vast majority of climate scientists accept that global warming is mostly driven by human activity. My reference suggests it is about 97% of climate scientists that make up this consensus.

So your refusal to accept what is now standard climate science is denial, not skepticism.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:25 am

Lance you can create your own definitions and imagine that the science is settled and imagine there is a 97% consensus,

But you are wrong on all accounts.

The only thing that is settled science supporting global warming alarmism is 1) the earth warmed since the Little Ice Age 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is rising in concentration.

But every scientist knows correlations are not causation, and there is a ton of evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that CO2 drives climate change.

If you ever step outside of the groupthink, will you will be able to see ALL the empirical contrary evidence more clearly. But you don't, because you shield your eyes and mind from reading anything I write or any another critical thinker writes. And your excuse for shielding yourself from any true skeptical thinking is by clinging to the fallacy of authority.

You can snipe over and over that I am a denier, but that will never make it true. It is only your protection mechanism that identifies you as a loyal member of your fellow groupthinkers

I guarantee I understand the science far better than you, and I see ALL the evidence.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:17 am

You do not understand the science better than the professional climatologists, and they firmly disagree with you.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lausten » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:46 pm

Jim Steele wrote:The only thing that is settled science supporting global warming alarmism is 1) the earth warmed since the Little Ice Age 2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is rising in concentration.

You have mocked the term "settled science" repeatedly. You rarely say things categorically, instead you go off on tangents about ground water and claim you are being serious, so it's good to know you don't think the CO2 connection is well established. That would be one of the things about which you are a denier.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:You do not understand the science better than the professional climatologists, and they firmly disagree with you.


You deny the empirical evidence. Only 13 to 36% of survey scientists working in climate fields have ACTUALLY stated they believe that over 50% of the observed climate change is due to CO2.

Antarctic scientists have admitted that they are split whether or not there has been any anthropogenic effects on Antarctica. Furthermore the empirical paleodata challenges any atmospheric effects. The Antarctic ice sheet formed over 30 million years ago. Greenland ice sheet didn't begin to form until about 2.5 million. Changing greenhouse gases don't explain the divergence in ice formation.

Greenland gained ice this year. The IPCC published in early reports that Greenland was stable between 1960 and 1990. The period of melting the past 2 decades has been shown by scientists was due to the position of a high pressure system that reduced cloud cover and increased solar heating and that shift in the high pressure system location was due to the North Atlantic Oscillation.

CO2 driven models failed to model polar changes. They underestimated the Arctic sea ice loss and overestimated the Antarctic changes.

The only evidence that CO2 has caused recent climate change is that their models using natural drivers cannot replicate recent climate change and their models only simulate warming if CO2 is added. But those same models failed to simulate the warming of the 30s and the cooling that followed into the 70s. The models take an observed warm 1930s warm spike and recreate a cooling period. Empirical evidence show the rate of warming in Greenland was much greater in the 1930s. The models fail to simulate the severe heat waves of the 30s dust bowl and the 1950s. The empirical evidence shows there are warming holes such eastern USA where temperatures have not increased since the 1900s. Clearly the models have not yet simulated natural climate change.

There is an abundance of evidence that casts doubt on the CO2 meme, but people don't step outside of group think to ever critically think about it. Instead as sure as the sun will rise, whenever faced with any contradictory evidence they shut there minds, shoot the messenger, and parade around the superstitious belief that 97% of the scientists believe it is all CO2. This thread illustrates the group thinkers behavior perfectly. Shut minds that don't examine the topic at hand, engage in nothing but shoot the messenger, and then parade around a belief in the mythical 97% ,to support their superstition. The empirical evidence for this summation is visible throughout this thread.

So now who wants to discuss the science of groundwater and sea level that is the topic of this post?

I suggest if you want to keep talking about how we hate skeptics and Jim, start your own thread on that topic.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lausten » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:14 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The big break through leading to our modern society, with its advanced science and technology, came with the break from logic, and the collection of empirical data instead. Leonardo da Vinci led the way, in a small way, and Copernicus, Kepler and Brahe followed. The new approach was formalised by Francis Bacon with the first published account of the scientific method as use by modern researchers. (There was an earlier version written by Muslim scholars but it had little impact on Europe).

Let's not forget the earlier contributions
Europe finally got the revolution rolling by actually funding science and by lowering barriers, like religion. Islam did some science funding, but still with a purpose of conquering the world and bringing their religion to it.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lausten » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:17 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
So now who wants to discuss the science of groundwater and sea level that is the topic of this post?

Yes, the topic is groundwater. And the category is Climate Change. And you have made it abundantly clear that you want to discuss the groundwater because it supports your denial of the AGW consensus. So, we're all caught up now, K?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:54 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I have no doubt, Jim, that if groundwater becomes accepted as a significant contributor to sea level rise, that will be written up in the science mags I read. As and when that happens, I will add that information to my understanding of the process. Sadly, I do not regard your sources to be as credible, so I will wait for confirmation.



Just fascinating!

My article contains links to the empirical evidence from many peer-reviewed scientists. But Lance refuses to read about that science because it is not from favored media. Instead he awaits confirmation from the mythical 97% that btw has had nothing to say about natural groundwater recharge and discharge, before Lance gives himself permission to think for himself. Instead he attacks logic and reason in order to shoot the messenger.

Now that is truly superstitious behavior.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:05 pm

Lausten wrote:Yes, the topic is groundwater. And the category is Climate Change. And you have made it abundantly clear that you want to discuss the groundwater because it supports your denial of the AGW consensus. So, we're all caught up now, K?


As an ecologist, I thoroughly understand you must look at all the evidence. In doing so I always evaluate natural climate change, and other contributing anthropogenic factors. It is that scientific approach that led me to correctly analyze watershed degradation and restore it when others blindly blamed a single factor of CO2.

In order to evaluate to what degree CO2 contributes to any observed changes, it is mandatory that we firmly establish the bounds of natural variability. Analyzing natural change as a causative agent is required science. It is the only way to make our climate models better. And for those of us who actually read the peer-viewed science, it is obvious that hundreds of scientists say the very same thing.

But those locked into groupthink, interpret every presentation of natural causes for observed changes as denial, close their minds and play shoot the messenger
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:41 pm

Here is an example of the requirement to look at natural variability's contribution from the "97%". They confirm what I published in 2013 that the PDO is an important contributor to observed changes. Apparently despite LAnce's snipe, many climate scientists agree with exactly what I have reported


Abstract

A key challenge in climate science is to separate observed temperature changes into components due to internal variability and responses to external forcing. Extended integrations of forced and unforced climate models are often used for this purpose. Here we demonstrate a novel method to separate modes of internal variability from global warming based on differences in time scale and spatial pattern, without relying on climate models. We identify uncorrelated components of Pacific sea surface temperature variability due to global warming, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Our results give statistical representations of PDO and ENSO that are consistent with their being separate processes, operating on different time scales, but are otherwise consistent with canonical definitions. We isolate the multidecadal variability of the PDO and find that it is confined to midlatitudes; tropical sea surface temperatures and their teleconnections mix in higher-frequency variability. This implies that midlatitude PDO anomalies are more persistent than previously thought.


I am waiting for my university library to send me the full text and I will update you all when it arrives. But in similar fashion the Johnstone 2014 paper Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2001 stated




Significance

Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing,

Abstract

NE Pacific circulation changes are estimated to account for more than 80% of the 1900–2012 linear warming in coastal NE Pacific SST and US Pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California) SAT. An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural internally generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012 and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales.


http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14360

Once you step outside of the alarmist groupthink, you will see the scientific journals are teeming with such analyses and evidence, that sadly most people here will dismiss as denial. I guess these scientists are just guilty of using logic and reason. ROTFLMAO
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:31 pm

Jim

No one has argued that the PDO has nothing to do with climate.

But the dominant theme in climate science is anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the primary cause of global warming. And there is a lot more evidence than just computer models. There is a wealth of data from laboratory studies on the greenhouse effect. It is proven and quantified.

Did you know, Jim, that not only is the climate of Venus (hot, hot, hot) explainable only with CO2 greenhouse effect, and a similar explanation for the frigid state of Mars, but the moon Titan orbiting Saturn is way warmer than it should be, based on its distance from the sun, and this is also explainable by the greenhouse effect, though with hydrocarbons instead of CO2.

We have satellite data on the influx of solar radiation to Earth and the decreasing outflow of infra red, exactly as the increasing greenhouse gas levels predict.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

Oh yes. There is a heap of empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2.

The now late, but forever great Stephen Hawking said that anyone who denies the reality of global warming should take a trip to Venus. For Trump, he even offered to pay the fare.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:16 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:No one has argued that the PDO has nothing to do with climate.


Lance you miss the point again and deflect the issue.

I never argued that climate scientists have argued the PDO has nothing to do with climate change.

The point was simply that we must understand the effects of natural variability before we can assert with any scientific certainty that observed changes are due to CO2. As the Johnstone paper shows, we can explain all of the past century of climate change in the northeast Pacific region by natural variability.

In addition I point out that alarmists quickly brand all attempts to discuss natural climate change as denial. A behavior you have demonstrated as well.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:25 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Did you know, Jim, that not only is the climate of Venus (hot, hot, hot) explainable only with CO2 greenhouse effect,


ROTFLMAO

First being closer to the sun may have had an effect on Venus's temperatures and its absurdly high CO2 concentrations in a lifeless planet is far different than here on earth, don't you think?

Second I have never argued that there is no greenhouse effect. My argument has always been we have not accurately accounted for natural climate change, such that we cannot yet blame CO2 for observed changes. That's why I write about natural climate change, that freaks out all the alarmist CO2 group thinkers.

Your arguments are once again appear to be an attempt to deflect discussion from groundwater recharge and discharge that are affecting sea level changes.

If you want to discuss Mars and Venus, start an appropriate thread. There are many empirical facts to demonstrate you are clinging to beliefs that are not totally supported.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:18 pm

Jim

I am not currently interested in groundwater discharge. I am not saying your reference is right or wrong. I will sit on the fence on that one till I see it confirmed or denied in other sources.

On Venus.
The proximity of this planet to the sun does NOT explain why it is so hot on its surface that it would melt lead. The solar effect is well understood, and would not lift the temperature that much if the atmosphere was similar to Earth' s. Only the additional influence of a massive greenhouse effect can raise the surface temperature that much. My point in discussing Venus, Mars and Titan is to point out the power of the greenhouse effect. Those extraterrestrial bodies are empirical evidence for that. When humans increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the result is warming.

Let me make something clear. I am not arguing about groundwater, or ocean currents. I am arguing against your view that humanity is NOT the primary cause of global warming. In doing this, I am on safe ground, since the vast majority of the experts in this field (climate scientists) firmly believe that the empirical evidence supports anthropogenic cause.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Jim

I am not currently interested in groundwater discharge.



Really ?

So are you saying the only reason you are commenting on a post about groundwater recharge and discharge was to hijack the thread and play shoot the messenger because I use logic and reason?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:03 am

Using logic and reason is fine. Treating it as the sole means of finding the truth is not. Science is based on empiricism, and a excessive reliance on logic and reasoning is to expose it to nonsense. Logic has very accurately been called a very good way of making your mistakes with confidence.

My interest here, as in other threads, is to denounce bull-shit. I think it would be fair to say that the whole reason skepticism exists is to denounce bull-shit. Your views on global warming fit into this category.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Using logic and reason is fine.


Well Duh!!!

Lance Kennedy wrote: Treating it as the sole means of finding the truth is not.


Duh again. I agree and never do!

Lance Kennedy wrote:Science is based on empiricism, and a excessive reliance on logic and reasoning is to expose it to nonsense. Logic has very accurately been called a very good way of making your mistakes with confidence.

My interest here, as in other threads, is to denounce bull-shit. I think it would be fair to say that the whole reason skepticism exists is to denounce bull-shit. Your views on global warming fit into this category.


Everyone thinks their line of reasoning is "logical". Your belief in a faulty line of logic that nebulously attacks logic and reason is a fine example.

You never discuss the abundant empirical evidence I provide which is the basis for my logic and reasoning. As you admit you don't even read what is written. You just snipe because your logic suggests anyone who steps outside of alarmist groupthink must be wrong. What you call "bull-shit" is solely due to your lack of knowledge supported by your superstitious belief in a mythical 97% and the fallacy of authority, which you ally yourself with and which then emboldens you to believe your faulty ideas must be right without thinking any further and prevents you from considering valid alternative explanations.

But as every good scientist I know will tell you, we believe we must embrace multiple hypotheses and alternative explanations so that we don't get blinded by our beliefs. Your logic ridiculously calls that good scientific practice denial! ROTFLMAO

If you sincerely want to discuss the issues, then like us good scientists do, provide specific examples of what you object to and provide the evidence that supports your logic, other than hiding behind a mythical 97%!

My reason for posting is also driven by my dedication to expose bull-shit. We cannot be good stewards of the environment unless we have good science.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:10 am

Yes, Jim. But you do not present good science. My 97% figure is not mythical. I described the peer reviewed research paper it came from. It is real. The vast majority of climate scientists disagree strongly with your particular piece of fiction.

I do not know where you originally picked up the idea that global warming is not anthropogenic. But I do know that there is a very well financed operation to promulgate that piece of intellectual crap, paid for by Big Coal and Big Oil. There are global warming denier web sites, and my best guess is that you were influenced by them. Or by someone else pushing the idea.

I have read your 'logic' on the subject. It is superficially reasonably convincing, and I am sure lots of people would be convinced by it. The problem is that, as I point out, the truth is not reached by an exercise in logic and reasoning. It is reached by genuine laboratory and field work to gather empirical data. I have never accused you of being stupid, and I am sure you make very good use of your intelligence to produce excellent rationalisations. The problem is that they are just rationalisations, even if you believe in them fervently. I know this, because the genuine experts on the subject are totally opposed to your view.

If and when 97% of the experts agree with you, then I will also.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:57 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not know where you originally picked up the idea that global warming is not anthropogenic. But I do know that there is a very well financed operation to promulgate that piece of intellectual crap, paid for by Big Coal and Big Oil. There are global warming denier web sites, and my best guess is that you were influenced by them. Or by someone else pushing the idea.


Ohh I see. You are a conspiracy theorist.

So everything I say must be due to Big Oil! Bwaaahaaaahaha

You ignore the fact my climate understanding is due to 30 years of field research understanding how regional climate change affects wildlife and hydrology. My beliefs are due to my professional efforts to promote wise environmental stewardship.

Yours are based on nutty conspiracy logic that you attribute to me without any empirical evidence. ROTFLMAO
Last edited by Jim Steele on Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The problem is that they are just rationalisations, even if you believe in them fervently. I know this, because the genuine experts on the subject are totally opposed to your view..


Everything I write is supported by peer reviewed evidence. You have never refuted a single argument

Instead you hide behind the 97% myth to explain all your logic. That's not evidence. Thats superstition.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:06 am

Your statement that global warming due to CO2 is not supported by evidence is refuted. As I pointed out, there is heaps of evidence.

No, I am not a conspiracy theorist. The injection of funds by fossil fuel companies into global warming denial is well documented. A conspiracy theory is about a supposed secret group, and there is nothing secret here. The global warming denial is so well supported that it has even reached the American president. Actually, the fact that Trump supports climate denial is a pretty good indication all by itself that this denial is wrong. Birds of a feather flock together, and idiots seek out other idiots. (Just kidding.)

If you have done 30 years of study on regional climate and it's effect on the environment, that is great. Does not explain, though, why you got onto a corrupt and fake band wagon.

And yes, the vast majority of climate scientists support the suggestion that global warming is human driven. The 97% may or may not be totally accurate, but it will not be far off. Since I lack the arrogance to believe I know better than the experts, I will continue to support the anthropogenic concept.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your statement that global warming due to CO2 is not supported by evidence is refuted.


The specifically refute it. Just because you say so just meaningless.

Lance your idea of a scientific arguments is hilarious. It seems to be you think that if you say I am wrong enough times then you win. Its hard to believe you were ever trained in science.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:29 am

Im bored with Lance's silly conspiracy theory, so let's get back to science. Is there anyone here that wants to engage in a mature conversation about the science?

Recent glacier meltwater contribution to sea level is likely overestimated?

In addition to a groundwater base flow driving the current steady rise in sea level, meltwater from retreating Little Ice Age glaciers undoubtedly contributed as well. But by how much? Researchers have estimated there was greater glacial retreat (and thus a greater flux of meltwater) in the early 1900s compared to now. So, current glacier retreat is unlikely to cause any acceleration of recent sea level rise. Furthermore, we cannot assume glacier meltwater rapidly enters the oceans. A large proportion of meltwater likely enters the ground, so it may take several hundred years for Little Ice Age glacier meltwater to affect sea level.

How fast can groundwater reach the ocean? Groundwater measured in the Great Plains’ Ogallala Aquifer can flow at a higher-than-average seepage rate of ~300 mm (~1 foot) in a day, or about the length of a football field in a year. For such “fast” moving groundwater to travel 1000 kilometers (620 miles) to the sea, it would require over 10,000 years! Most ground water travels much slower. The great weight of the continental glaciers during our last ice age, applied such great pressure that it forced meltwater to into the ground at much greater rates than currently observed recharge. And that Ice Age meltwater is still slowly moving through aquifers like the Ogallala.

(However, its release to the ocean has been sped up by human pumping. Recent estimates suggest that globally, human groundwater extraction currently exceeds rates of water capture from dam building, so that groundwater depletion is now accelerating sea level rise.)

How much of the current meltwater can we expect to transit to the ocean via a slow groundwater route? That’s a tough question to answer. However, thirteen percent of the earth’s ice-free land surface is covered by endorheic basins as illustrated by the gray areas shown in the illustration below. Endorheic basins have no direct outlets to the ocean. Water entering endorheic basins only return to the sea via evaporation, or by the extremely slow route of groundwater discharge. Any precipitation or glacial meltwater flowing into an endorheic basin could require centuries to thousands of years to flow back to the oceans.

For example, in 2010-2011, researchers reported that a La Nina event had caused global sea level to fall by the equivalent of 7mm/year (~0.3 inches/year). That dramatic drop happened despite concurrent extensive ice melt in Greenland and despite any base flow contribution. As described by Fasullo (2013), GRACE satellite observations detected increased groundwater storage caused by higher rates of rainwater falling on endorheic basins, primarily in Australia. Although satellite observations suggested much of the rainwater remained in the Australian basin, sea level resumed its unabated rise as groundwater base flow contribution would predict.


Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:26 am

Please state where the reference is from.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:34 am

The original article has the links I provided Read whole essay here https://goo.gl/xtn2AN
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:18 am

So it is your own web site.

Sorry Jim. That just proves it is not an objective science reference. It is your own highly prejudiced view of reality. You might be right, but there is nothing there to show it. You could just as easily be totally wrong.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:27 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:So it is your own web site.

Sorry Jim. That just proves it is not an objective science reference. It is your own highly prejudiced view of reality. You might be right, but there is nothing there to show it. You could just as easily be totally wrong.


ROTFLMAO. More superstitious belief! Without examination of the empirical evidence Lance's logic and reasoning fabricates that if my essay is on my website then it "proves it is not an objective science reference".

No need to think!

Skeptic scientists must be prejudiced, but alarmist scientists are objective.

If a skeptic reports on published evidence from the scientific community it must be prejudiced. ROTFLMAO

I never ever claim I MUST be right thats your straw man Lance. I simply provide alternative explanations from a natural climate change perspective. The intent is to promote healthy debate which is the foundation of reliable science. The truth emerges from sincere debate.

I mistakenly thought Lance might engage in a mature debate about groundwater recharge and discharge, But sadly, Lance closes his mind, plays shoot the messenger, and retreats to the shelter of groupthink. That's anti-science behavior.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lausten » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:03 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not know where you originally picked up the idea that global warming is not anthropogenic. But I do know that there is a very well financed operation to promulgate that piece of intellectual crap, paid for by Big Coal and Big Oil. There are global warming denier web sites, and my best guess is that you were influenced by them. Or by someone else pushing the idea.


Ohh I see. You are a conspiracy theorist.


It's not a theory.

And it was not discovered just recently
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:10 pm

Jim

You tried to discredit my reference about the 97% of climate scientists because (as far as I can make out) it was not an internet reference. But it was from a reputable, peer reviewed, international journal, and I gave all the information I had which included journal title, author, authors affiliation, year of publication, and even a summary of its contents.

For a reference, you supply something you wrote yourself and self published on your own web site. I hate to say it, but that is two faced. I told you I would wait till I saw your material confirmed in another publication. Clearly, that is the right thing to do. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

Thank you for those references, Lausten. I think that Jim Steele has been thoroughly discredited.

I note that his own global warming denier web site is well made, possibly professionally so. I wonder where Jim gets his finance ?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:14 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I note that his own global warming denier web site is well made, possibly professionally so. I wonder where Jim gets his finance ?



ROTFLAMO!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: The nutty conspiracy ideology keeps emerging.


No science. No empirical data. Just conspiracy theory logic and reasoning.

I am flattered that you describe my website as well made and possibly professional. All self taught and funded by my retirement. Logically CalPers is funding skeptical science.. ROTFLMAO

People will always promote what is in their self interest. An oil company will promote scientific research that is line with their interests. Likewise a researcher will support what ever research promotes their beliefs in order to maintain their status and funding streams. Only the most naive will ever believe that only one group and not the other is biased.

The idiotic conspiracy theories suggest that a scientist forms his beliefs solely because their funding came from whatever. instead of the converse where funders support research they agree with.

The NSF gets populated by scientists with certain beliefs, and they in turn award grants to scientists who promote their beliefs and deny grant money to those with whom they disagree. Thus for objective science to proceed, it is important to have many different funding pathways so that group think is avoided. A coal company maybe biased, but that doesn't mean they support bad research, anymore than the NSF will. The Union of Concerned Scientists that Lausten links to promoted Parmesan's research which has been shown to horribly wrong and contrary to what most scientists in her field will agree with.

No matter who funds the research we must always be skeptical of their interpretations and carefully evaluate the evidence. Sadly Lance does not do that. He is biased against any research that does not promote his alarmism. He denounces research that simply explores alternative explanations, sticks is fingers in his ears and blindly plays shoot the messenger.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10849
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:12 pm

Jim

Your web site is well done. If you did it yourself, then I congratulate you on doing it well.

My views, as I have been very clear about, are based on the science. Since I am not a climate scientist myself, I go by what the experts say. The 97% figure I gave is approximately correct, allowing for a small error margin. With 97% of climate scientists affirming that global warming is caused by human activity, then denying that is denying the science. Such a person is not a skeptic, but a denier.

I have read enough articles on the subject to know that there is ample empirical evidence to support that majority view.

On conspiracies.
As I pointed out, conspiracy theorists are into secret groups. Those who believe the 9/11 attack was a local conspiracy will point out that the reason they have no empirical evidence is that the conspiracy was secret. Ditto for those who believe the government is dissecting aliens at Roswell, or that the moon landings were a hoax. Their lack of evidence is always due to the idea that the conspiracy was secret.

The financial support given by Big Coal and Big Oil to global warming deniers is not secret. As Lauston pointed out, there are documented articles on their actions. Because it is not secret, it is known to be a fact. As such the accusation that I am a conspiracy theorist is laughable.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Lausten » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:37 pm

Not on topic, but on the topic of Jim and his belief system; I heard this podcast yesterday, linked at the top of my blog.

http://winter60.blogspot.com/2018/03/be ... human.html

They talk about belief within the context of church, but it's the same for denial of AGW. As Cass Midgely calls it, it's the "helpless situation" you get into, when anyone who disagrees with you is just proving your point. In Christianity it's "persecuted for my namesake" for Jim it's they "attack logic and reason in order to shoot the messenger".
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20891
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:33 pm

AGW denialism revolves around "It might cost me money!" Selfishness taken to a new low.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic
Contact:

Re: Ancient Groundwater Discharge Explains Steady Sea Level Rise

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Mar 18, 2018 4:19 pm

Lausten wrote:Not on topic, but on the topic of Jim and his belief system; I heard this podcast yesterday, linked at the top of my blog.

http://winter60.blogspot.com/2018/03/be ... human.html

They talk about belief within the context of church, but it's the same for denial of AGW. As Cass Midgely calls it, it's the "helpless situation" you get into, when anyone who disagrees with you is just proving your point. In Christianity it's "persecuted for my namesake" for Jim it's they "attack logic and reason in order to shoot the messenger".


Damn Lausten, You have been working awfully hard to fabricate an ugly narrative about me, that does not fit reality.

It was Lance who criticized "logic and reason", and indeed it was in order to shoot the messenger. And everyone of your posts Lausten have all been personal attack as well.

When I point out these actions, you try to defend your mean-spiritedness devoid of scientific discussion by spinning it as my delusions of persecution. ROTFLMAO
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest